The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[ATFC Seagull]

I believe you can only prove 100% with the 'killers' admission.

I am against the Death Penalty in all cases.

Which you would probably never get if they knew a death verdict was coming. Which would probably cost a huge amount in legal fees where otherwise pleas might be entered.

 

[Simster]

My very first post said:

The critical thing is ensuring that the decision of guilt is correct.

But now what is your view with a Child Rapist/Muderer that is 100% guilty, that is my debate.

Eh? So as it stands, presumably we sling these people away for 20 years "just in case" they're guilty then?

 

[BigGully]

I believe you can only prove 100% with the 'killers' admission.

I am against the Death Penalty in all cases.

Jeeeeez, dont go down the admission route, there are many examples where confessions are unsafe.

But thats me arguing for you !!!

You must assume that I would only support the death penalty if the person was guilty

 

[BigGully]

Eh? So as it stands, presumably we just sling these people away for 20 years "just in case" they're guilty then?

Sorry dont quite get ya ....

I havent posted any comment that should be interpreted that way !!!!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Sorry dont quite get ya ....

I havent posted any comment that should be interpreted that way !!!!

Well by arguing that the death penalty should need 100% guilt, you are sort of implying that non-death penalty crimes would not...

 

[Simster]

Well by arguing that the death penalty should need 100% guilt, you are sort of implying that non-death penalty crimes would not...

Correct.

 

[NMH]

We are all a product of our own experiences and our own psychology.

I assume Ian Huntley is psychologically flawed, however I do not wish this to somehow legitimise his actions or defend his guilt.

I think the crime so abhorrent that he deserves no resources, no support or care from me, you or the state.

I am at ease allowing him to be condemned and be killed.

The prison system as it is, has seemingly condemned him to a lifetime of fear, and having to periodically attempt suicide to evade being killed by his fellow inmates!
That he'll be so sectioned away that for him to even have one friend or decent person to talk to is impossible - his fear, paranoia, isolation, lack of sympathy or social interraction must be so belittling and hellish.
When you consider that time is relative, and your perspective on time can have it be your friend or your enemy - don't you think that his punishment as it stands is so awful - and that it does fit the crime?
His own life will be a confusion as to whether it's a worthy thing to be alive for! Seems like justice, is being properly served.
Personally, I wouldn't advocate ending it early.

 

[BensGrandad]

I do not believe that the death penalty is the answer. I believe that life should mean life and it should be carried out in a cell 24 hours day with nothing in the cell other than 1 book that is exchangeable likea library book, bed, chair table toilet and perhaps after behaving themselves for a period they could earn the right to have a radio. If a person is never going to be released, as in the recent Ipswich murders, why do we need to re-educate or rehabilitate the prisoner.

 

[simmo]

The reason why crime is so rife in our society now is because of a lack of a deterent. Many convicted of crimes be they small or as heinous as Bellfield's have no real fear of going to jail. However, maybe if Bellfield knew he could be executed if he was caught, then maybe, just maybe, two completely innocent girls would still be alive (and probably numerous others). Sure bringing back the death penalty won't stop all murders however, SOME potential murderers may think again.

Any comparison with the USA is pointless, the USA has completely different laws concerning gun control, many more people are armed over there. The USA will always have a higher murder rate than over here (even if we had the death penalty and they did not) because of their insane allowance of allowing individuals to bear arms. A disagreement is much more likely to end with a shot being fired from a gun in anger than it is here, because of the sheer numbers of individuals whom carry firearms.

 

[London Calling]

I do not believe that the death penalty is the answer. I believe that life should mean life and it should be carried out in a cell 24 hours day with nothing in the cell other than 1 book that is exchangeable likea library book, bed, chair table toilet and perhaps after behaving themselves for a period they could earn the right to have a radio. If a person is never going to be released, as in the recent Ipswich murders, why do we need to re-educate or rehabilitate the prisoner.

Basically, you have also to respect the rights of the wardens who have to work with these people, if the prisoner has no hope, or will. They can and will make make the wardens job more difficult socially, and in safety terms.

 

[BigGully]

Well by arguing that the death penalty should need 100% guilt, you are sort of implying that non-death penalty crimes would not...

No thats just isnt valid ....... if I put my view exclusively on the death penalty, to then somehow say I am 'sort of implying' is a silly and ridiculous comment.

 

[Buzzer]

My very first post said:

The critical thing is ensuring that the decision of guilt is correct.

But now what is your view with a Child Rapist/Muderer that is 100% guilty, that is my debate.

Then your thinking is flawed on several levels

1. Who decides that the decision is correct? Is that not what the court is for in the first place?

2. Presumably there are convicted murderers who are 100% guilty and others not 100% guilty in your world. Surely, under English Law, the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt - making your varying grades pointless. They are convicted ergo the decision is 100% correct (unless a miscarriage of justice but you don't care about that) and they would hang.

3. Prevention is better than cure. Your approach is to wait for a murder, solve it, hope that it's the right man and so on and so forth. It's far better for the future victims of future murderers if we stop the crime. Only by trying to understand the causes can we prevent.

An excellent example is that serial killers tend to torture animals/pets that sort of thing at a young age. We only know this by treating current serial killers. We can spot kiddies with a prediliction for this and actually do something about it.


You really are a muddled fool.

 

[London Calling]

The reason why crime is so rife in our society now is because of a lack of a deterent. Many convicted of crimes be they small or as heinous as Bellfield's have no real fear of going to jail. However, maybe if Bellfield knew he could be executed if he was caught, then maybe, just maybe, two completely innocent girls would still be alive (and probably numerous others). Sure bringing back the death penalty won't stop all murders however, SOME potential murderers may think again.

Any comparison with the USA is pointless, the USA has completely different laws concerning gun control, many more people are armed over there. The USA will always have a higher murder rate than over here (even if we had the death penalty and they did not) because of their insane allowance of allowing individuals to bear arms. A disagreement is much more likely to end with a shot being fired from a gun in anger than it is here, because of the sheer numbers of individuals whom carry firearms.

Go the opposite way and look at the countries such as our nordic friends where crime levels in proportional terms are very low to the UK and where their is also a very good rehabilitation programme. And their prison population is also very low.

Don't we already have the highest prison population in Europe and relatively in the world only being beaten by the USA?

In some respects because American has guns - this is not the reason for dismissing the country from this debate. Murderers will use any tool to kill. In fact many studies have shown its not the actual killing that matters but the stalking, capture, the thrill that matters.

These people 99% of the time have psychological problems and the death penalty will have no bearing on their judgement.

 

[London Calling]

Then your thinking is flawed on several levels

1. Who decides that the decision is correct? Is that not what the court is for in the first place?

2. Presumably there are convicted murderers who are 100% guilty and others not 100% guilty in your world. Surely, under English Law, the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt - making your varying grades pointless. They are convicted ergo the decision is 100% correct (unless a miscarriage of justice but you don't care about that) and they would hang.

3. Prevention is better than cure. Your approach is to wait for a murder, solve it, hope that it's the right man and so on and so forth. It's far better for the future victims of future murderers if we stop the crime. Only by trying to understand the causes can we prevent.

An excellent example is that serial killers tend to torture animals/pets that sort of thing at a young age. We only know this by treating current serial killers. We can spot kiddies with a prediliction for this and actually do something about it.


You really are a muddled fool.

Didn't the bloke on the front page of the Sun, which prompted todays editorial in the Sun, have sex with his sisters rabbit before killing it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Basically, you have also to respect the rights of the wardens who have to work with these people, if the prisoner has no hope, or will. They can and will make make the wardens job more difficult socially, and in safety terms.

Not really as they would have no reason to go outside of their cells. So to keep them locked up for 24/7 is no problem you could make a hatchway, like the Post Office does for parcels or the banks do for money where one side is open the other is then shut. Let them just rot and vegitate in a cell if they have a toilet and running water, in there what else do they need that cannot be passed through a hatch like clean bed lining. The only visit they would need is from a doctor periodically. You could have a stopcock outside of the cell to regulate when and how much water is allowed into the cell so as to avoid suicide by drowning or flooding the rest of the prison.

 

[London Calling]

Not really as they would have no reason to go outside of their cells. So to keep them locked up for 24/7 is no problem you could make a hatchway, like the Post Office does for parcels or the banks do for money where one side is open the other is then shut. Let them just rot and vegitate in a cell if they have a toilet and running water, in there what else do they need that cannot be passed through a hatch like clean bed lining. The only visit they would need is from a doctor periodically. You could have a stopcock outside of the cell to regulate when and how much water is allowed into the cell so as to avoid suicide by drowning or flooding the rest of the prison.

Can't we just send them to Butlins instead?

 

[Buzzer]

Didn't the bloke on the front page of the Sun, which prompted todays editorial in the Sun, have sex with his sisters rabbit before killing it.

and if we had a properly funded social services and it had been spotted early enough then maybe he could have been treated before he murdered. Just a thought.

Big Gully would not bother with that kind of thing though. Hang him after he did the crime....

 

[BensGrandad]

Can't we just send them to Butlins instead?

Is that not what we do now with their computers, i Pods TVs etc and why do the do gooders not suggest bringing in prositutes to satisfy their sexual needs.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Medical evidence suggested Sally James and some other mothers were guilty of murdering their children. Medical evidence was later ruled unsafe and they were released.

What would have happened if these 'child killers' had been put to death?

 

[NMH]

I do not believe that the death penalty is the answer. I believe that life should mean life and it should be carried out in a cell 24 hours day with nothing in the cell other than 1 book that is exchangeable likea library book, bed, chair table toilet and perhaps after behaving themselves for a period they could earn the right to have a radio. If a person is never going to be released, as in the recent Ipswich murders, why do we need to re-educate or rehabilitate the prisoner.

Fair enough, with the book to radio idea, and very reasonable as a suggestion.

I think in the last bit, you are asking why a lifer should be kept alive?
Well, punishment for crime stands as more than simply an example to the incarcerated, it also stands as an example to others. Life sentances are handed down also as an example to the free, those who might consider the same crimes.